Pushbike helmets Part II

[Cooper69S]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

It needs to be pointed out the modern bike helmet has evolved, we are not talking about the Stackhat that was around when the compulsory laws were introduced

Those Rosebank Stackhats were awful. my parents wouldn't allow us to ride to school without a helmet even before the compulsory law came in, but they anticipated the abuse we'd cop for turning up with non-compusory stackhats and bought us decent helmets from a decent bike shop instead.

I don't ride that much these days (bought a decent road bike so must change that and get out more) but will always wear a helmet and have no real issue with it. if the law was changed and I had some nice open bike tracks close to home would I consider going for a leisurely ride without a helmet? maybe... but it wouldn't affect my decision to ride or not

[geckoGT]

Yeah, the original rosebank stackhats are not even legal now as far as know because they do not meet AS. Their major problem (apart from being the daggiest helmet known to man) is that the hard plastic shell has sharp edges that have caused major lacerations especially around the ears and the neck area.

[motorcycles4eva]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Oh man I must be a horrible horrible person, cause I couldn't help but laugh out loud when I saw that pic....


But yes, lack of bike infastructure here compared to Europe is an excellent point, and relates to my comment earlier about not wearing a helmet on a dedicated bike track. In Amsterdam and Copenhagen for example, your pretty much on a dedicated part of the road all the time so of course helmets arn't essential there like they are here.

silly question here.. does it look like the bike riders are on the wrong side of the road facing oncoming traffic?

[paule11]

I ride and wear a helmet wouldnt worry about wearing one too much if I didnt have too.
Dont ride on busy roads much if it was optional to wear a helmet I probably would wear one on the roads.
I can see one day we will have to wear helmets in cars and all the people that are under 5 years old now will be arguing and saying how important it is to wear a helmet in a carin polls like this in the future.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by motorcycles4eva

silly question here.. does it look like the bike riders are on the wrong side of the road facing oncoming traffic?

I would suggest that because it is about 20 cyclists and one car having a head on collision, perhaps the car is on the wrong side.

Also considering it is in the US, last time I heard they drove on the right in the US, which puts the car on the wrong side of the road.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by paule11

I can see one day we will have to wear helmets in cars and all the people that are under 5 years old now will be arguing and saying how important it is to wear a helmet in a carin polls like this in the future.

I don't really think that will ever be on the cards, instead you will see improvements in safety features of cars without laws requiring full face helmets, race suits and fire retardant undies.

[paule11]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I don't really think that will ever be on the cards, instead you will see improvements in safety features of cars without laws requiring full face helmets, race suits and fire retardant undies.

I remember when bike helmets came in back in the 80s we were all saying beforehand how ridiculous it is and it wont happen.

[WMD351]

I was told at school by somebody who came in to give a talk about helmets and safety that the old stackhats actually caused a lot of neck injuries owing to the design going so far down the back of the head. If your head was snapped backwards they would really dig in to your neck and they ended up damaging a few spinal cords.

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by paule11

I can see one day we will have to wear helmets in cars

Only about 50% of the people I tell this believe me but when I was little I actually saw a family of 4 wearing stackhats in a car. It's something I will never forget.

[jakkes]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

No worries, it was all in jest as I know you can appreciate! BTW, how far are you into your build in your avatar?

Bud Bud

yeah i know just some fun lol. the build is the same as all my other projects all on hold been over sea's for 6 weeks in the USA. Spent all my $$ on that and quit my job when i got back but applying for a way better paying job soon so fingers crossed i get it

back on topic people must think helmets are still like those big 80's things lol there much better now. Like others have said they don't affect vision or hearing at all.


jaK

[mik]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Oh man I must be a horrible horrible person, cause I couldn't help but laugh out loud when I saw that pic....


But yes, lack of bike infastructure here compared to Europe is an excellent point, and relates to my comment earlier about not wearing a helmet on a dedicated bike track. In Amsterdam and Copenhagen for example, your pretty much on a dedicated part of the road all the time so of course helmets arn't essential there like they are here.

hmmm Amsterdam very different place to our little piece of rock, legal marijuana .........i wonder how that fits into their road rules and helmet wearing ^^? and only 1.8 million people approximately.
more of a tourist place like venice from what i can see from my vast travels http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNhLP...eature=related

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

For example, skydiving is potentially dangerous but do you think the parachutist just stuffs the chute in any old way, chooses not to carry a reserve and refuses to have an altimeter? Of course not, he assesses each risk and then makes all preparations and checks to ensure the risks are reduced as much as possible. That way he gets to enjoy the activity safely and then do it again and again and again. Should the skydiver be allowed to delete these safety items and checks in the interest of "freedom of choice"? I am tipping you would say no because that would be insane, but how is riding a bike any different? there is actually a much greater chance of falling off a bike at sufficient speed to cause head injury than there is of a parachute failing to open, yet you suggest people should be able to choose not to wear a helmet, I guess parachutists should have the choice to jump without a reserve.

Fatalities per million hours
0.027 fatalities per million hours of living at home
0.15 fatalities per million hours of flying
0.26 fatalities per million hours of cycling
0.47 fatalities per million hours of passenger car use
1.07 fatalities per million hours of swimming
1.53 fatalities per million hours of living (all causes of death)
8.8 fatalities per million hours of on-road motorcycling
128.71 fatalities per million hours of sky diving

[xbgs351]

Relative risk per participant
Airsports 450
Climbing 137
Motor sports 81
Fishing 41
Horse riding 29
Swimming 7.0
Athletics 5.7
Football 4.9
Tennis 4.2
Cycling 1.0
Safer Golf 0.83
Rambling 0.06


UK Deaths per year
Cycling, road traffic accidents 138
Cycling, other 29
All transport 3,032
At home 3,974
Other accidents 5,026
Obesity (England only) 30,000
Heart disease due to inactivity 58,090
All heart disease 157,000

Risk of death during lifetime
Heart disease 1 in 5
Motor vehicle accident 1 in 84
Pedestrian accident 1 in 626
Motorcycle accident 1 in 1,020
Bicycle accident 1 in 4,919

Risk of injury per million km
Age group Motorists (driver) / Cyclists
12 - 14: - / 16.8
15 - 17: - / 18.2
18 - 24: 33.5 / 7.7
25 - 29: 17.0 / 8.2
30 - 39: 9.7 / 7.0
40 - 49: 9.7 / 9.2
50 - 59: 5.9 / 17.2
60 - 64: 10.4 / 32.1
> 64: 39.9 / 79.1
Total: 20.8 / 21.0

[KYSBF]

I wear a helmet whenever I jump on my pushie. Partly because I value my life as I know it and do not want to live it as a vegetable, additionally I have two boys and wish to set a good axample for them too. I cannot imagine if either one of them got knocked off and got an injury or worse that could have been prevented. It is common sense........there are a few whinging about becoming a nanny-state etc. Possibly because there is a diminished ability amongst society to practice common sense.
As it has been pointed out, the financial and social cost to keep someone who has been paralysed or whatever is immense.

Maybe this something to do with becoming a nanny state.........we fail to excercise common sense with most decisions we make for ourselves, impacting on most other areas of society. Over burdening health care and systems, draining finances and resources trying to fix someones decision to feel the breeze in their hair.

my 2 bobs.

[4Vman]

Sounds like pedestrians should be the ones wearing helmets not push bike riders!!!

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Sounds like pedestrians should be the ones wearing helmets not push bike riders!!!

The rate of heat injuries per kilometer traveled is higher for pedestrians than it is for cyclists.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Relative risk per participant
Airsports 450
Climbing 137
Motor sports 81
Fishing 41
Horse riding 29
Swimming 7.0
Athletics 5.7
Football 4.9
Tennis 4.2
Cycling 1.0
Safer Golf 0.83
Rambling 0.06


UK Deaths per year
Cycling, road traffic accidents 138
Cycling, other 29
All transport 3,032
At home 3,974
Other accidents 5,026
Obesity (England only) 30,000
Heart disease due to inactivity 58,090
All heart disease 157,000

Risk of death during lifetime
Heart disease 1 in 5
Motor vehicle accident 1 in 84
Pedestrian accident 1 in 626
Motorcycle accident 1 in 1,020
Bicycle accident 1 in 4,919

Risk of injury per million km
Age group Motorists (driver) / Cyclists
12 - 14: - / 16.8
15 - 17: - / 18.2
18 - 24: 33.5 / 7.7
25 - 29: 17.0 / 8.2
30 - 39: 9.7 / 7.0
40 - 49: 9.7 / 9.2
50 - 59: 5.9 / 17.2
60 - 64: 10.4 / 32.1
> 64: 39.9 / 79.1
Total: 20.8 / 21.0

oops.......

So would a slight increase in pushie deaths be worth a much larger drop in other deaths?

After all, the poll CLEARLY shows that the majority of current pushie riders would continue to wear helmets so changeing the law will have little effect on them and if even just a few people who were not riding suddenly started that must be a good thing.
Hey a few of the new riders might just wear a helmet out of choice, THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE, no one else's.

I am sure someone is going to come out with some hitleresque "ve haff vays oft makink you vere your helmut ven you ride" just to save at least one life.

But we could completely stop cycling deaths altogether by banning pushies outright and that would save a lot of lives......wouldn't it?

P.S. Love the car/bike deaths per million kms which clearly shows gen Y should not be allowed to drive at all

[XWGT]

Wind in the hair and a sense of freedom are essential parts of riding a bike for me.......so am happy to accept the increased risk as my own personal decision and enjoy the experience without a helmet.

[KYSBF]

Originally Posted by XWGT

Wind in the hair and a sense of freedom are essential parts of riding a bike for me.......so am happy to accept the increased risk as my own personal decision and enjoy the experience without a helmet.

And that's a good thing, so long as you are fully insured and your wish to have the breeze in your hair does not become someone elses burden if you come a cropper. (which I hope you don't).

[XWGT]

Originally Posted by KYSBF

And that's a good thing, so long as you are fully insured and your wish to have the breeze in your hair does not become someone elses burden if you come a cropper. (which I hope you don't).

Yes and no. I wont go into a long argument about public / private funding and the distribution of tax and charges in a democrotic society except to say if I'm injured medicare will pay its share, and that even as a vegtable on a permenant pension I will still continue to pay tax..........and contribute to the great tax pool that people refer to as "their money"

Perhaps the classic statement "death and taxes" was actually coined to refer to riding a bike.........without a helmet! :-)

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by KYSBF

And that's a good thing, so long as you are fully insured and your wish to have the breeze in your hair does not become someone elses burden if you come a cropper. (which I hope you don't).

Do you wear a helmet when walking? Are you fully insured?

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I did not wear a helmet during the crossing of the NT in my XR8, reasons are the roads are in good condition, my car was in excellent condition, weather conditions were clear and the speed was within the manufacturer specified capabilities of the car in every way. There were no obstacles likely to cause a sudden stop and if it even looked like there were some coming up, speed was reduced accordingly. The fact that I survived the trip without even a near miss or a hint of one is a testament to that. I have since had more near misses than that on race tracks.

Im a keen follower of both yours and Flappists posts, you add a wealth of knowledge to this site, however, you have got to be joking here right?

So your trying to say that because YOU feel safe driving at those speeds and managed to stay alive its a testiment to your ability.
Fact is any number of things could have gone wrong, a puncture which deflates rapidly, a pot hole which the roads dept you put full faith in was missed, a fox or rabbit runs out from a hole any number of 'unexpected' things could have happened.
Lets face it, if you (or Flappist) could poll the dozens of people you've scraped from fatal accidents in your career, how many of them would say they were well within their/the cars capabilities too?

Im just blown away that someone who advocates road safety would write such a claim on a public forum.

[KYSBF]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Do you wear a helmet when walking? Are you fully insured?

Sometimes I reckon I should.....about 1am Sunday etc. But that's not the point.This about pushie helmets.
As a company yes, comprehensive private cover yes. Do you?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Im a keen follower of both yours and Flappists posts, you add a wealth of knowledge to this site, however, you have got to be joking here right?

So your trying to say that because YOU feel safe driving at those speeds and managed to stay alive its a testiment to your ability.
Fact is any number of things could have gone wrong, a puncture which deflates rapidly, a pot hole which the roads dept you put full faith in was missed, a fox or rabbit runs out from a hole any number of 'unexpected' things could have happened.
Lets face it, if you (or Flappist) could poll the dozens of people you've scraped from fatal accidents in your career, how many of them would say they were well within their/the cars capabilities too?

Im just blown away that someone who advocates road safety would write such a claim on a public forum.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people have done exactly the same thing. NTs road toll has gone UP significantly since the open zones were dropped.

I am very confident that more people have been killed at under 111km/h than over 111 km/h.

You may choose to spend your life in constant fear or paranoia of "the unexpected" but you have no right to expect anyone else to.

Life is hard and then you die.

Regardless of how many rolls of cotton wool you wrap around yourself YOU WILL DIE ONE DAY and you will be no more or less dead than people who than people who lived life rather than just existed.

Just because Gecko or I do something does not make us or it right but then neither does it make us or it wrong.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people have done exactly the same thing. NTs road toll has gone UP significantly since the open zones were dropped.

I am very confident that more people have been killed at under 111km/h than over 111 km/h.

You may choose to spend your life in constant fear or paranoia of "the unexpected" but you have no right to expect anyone else to.

Life is hard and then you die.

Regardless of how many rolls of cotton wool you wrap around yourself YOU WILL DIE ONE DAY and you will be no more or less dead than people who than people who lived life rather than just existed.

Just because Gecko or I do something does not make us or it right but then neither does it make us or it wrong.

Well said.

You also have to remember that in the NT during those great days, the works dept knew that cars were doing that sort of speed and they maintained the road accordingly. If there was any road damage there was a caution sign a couple of km's ahead. I saw a few of these and when I did I washed speed off until I could see what the caution was for and the safest way around it. On the odd occasion it was a pot hole and by the time I got to it I was doing an appropriate speed. Maybe one of the reasons the NT introduced the lower speed limit was so they could save money on road maintenance. Others that have been there since have stated the roads are not as good now.

As for foxes and rabbits, highly unlikely during day time hours (it was 40 plus degrees, animals rest during heat), once the sun was getting low and dusk was approaching I slowed down and sat at a comfortable and safe speed for the conditions. The only animals I saw when the speed was up were some eagles that I could see far enough ahead to slow down for and a sparrow that hit my bonnet protector and cracked it (I found it caught under the bonnet protector above the headlight).

As for the puncture that deflates rapidly, normally this will not occur unless there is a road defect that slashes it (see my previous point). In the speed rating of tyres they have to be tested to withstand normal road debris without exploding into a million pieces, I had the appropriate tyres for my vehicle which are Y rated (300 km/h, 100 km/h fudge factor), they were less than 1000 km old.

Lets face it, if you (or Flappist) could poll the dozens of people you've scraped from fatal accidents in your career, how many of them would say they were well within their/the cars capabilities too?

Or how many of them spend so much time, money and effort ensuring their car is prepared (the car had been serviced 3 days prior to the trip plus I got one of the work mechanics to check it over on the hoist just to be sure). All their brake pads, tyres, oils and fluids are rated for the task. Or have as many advanced driving courses under their belt as I have. Now that would be an interesting poll.

I would go as far as to say that with the road conditions that were in the NT at the time and with an appropriate car, traveling at that speed is actually safer than trudging along dead straight roads at 110 km/h. Let me ask you this, on a predominately straight road with only gentle bends, do you drive looking ahead to the limit of vision and think about appropriate speed for bends and braking distance within your current visual distance? At the speeds I was traveling that is exactly what I was doing, slowing down when bends were approaching and also when my visual distance was reduced to a point that hazards may be obscured until they were well within the required braking distance of my vehicle. My awareness was at a point that even a small hill would prompt me to slow down as I could not see what was on the other side of the crest. How many people at 110 km/h go over the crest at 110 km/h without knowing what is on the other side? The average road user at 110 km/h in those conditions is lucky enough to be awake, never mind concentrating like that. I have to say the reduction in driver fatigue (drive for 1 hr, rest for 1/2 hour and still make good time) made safe driving so much easier and concentrating a cinch.

The risk of crashes on a bike in an urban environment are much higher and less easily controlled, pedestrians on the path, cars on the road, cats, dogs, kids running out etc, etc, etc, make it very likely to crash at some stage and all you have protecting your skull is a layer of skin and hair. That is why I wear a helmet and always will.

One last thought on this OT line of conversation. Just because I am a road safety advocate does not mean I am an advocate of low speeds, I am an advocate of appropriate speeds for road, car, driver and environmental conditions. Improve those conditions and you can raise the speed safely.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by flappist

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people have done exactly the same thing. NTs road toll has gone UP significantly since the open zones were dropped.

I am very confident that more people have been killed at under 111km/h than over 111 km/h.

You may choose to spend your life in constant fear or paranoia of "the unexpected" but you have no right to expect anyone else to.

Life is hard and then you die.

Regardless of how many rolls of cotton wool you wrap around yourself YOU WILL DIE ONE DAY and you will be no more or less dead than people who than people who lived life rather than just existed.

Just because Gecko or I do something does not make us or it right but then neither does it make us or it wrong.

Woah, settle down champ, i was not having a shot at either of you.
I was just commenting on how the particular paragraph sounded elitist if you like, as if to say these speeds are fine if your sure of yourself, and he is.

Gecko has many times pushed the 'drive safe' message and rightly so, he cleans alot of it up, i would have thought promoting excessive speed anywhere and justify it by saying he is confident in his skills is a bit do as i say, not as i do.

Anyway Back on topic.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Well said.

You also have to remember that in the NT during those great days, the works dept knew that cars were doing that sort of speed and they maintained the road accordingly. If there was any road damage there was a caution sign a couple of km's ahead. I saw a few of these and when I did I washed speed off until I could see what the caution was for and the safest way around it. On the odd occasion it was a pot hole and by the time I got to it I was doing an appropriate speed. Maybe one of the reasons the NT introduced the lower speed limit was so they could save money on road maintenance. Others that have been there since have stated the roads are not as good now.

As for foxes and rabbits, highly unlikely during day time hours (it was 40 plus degrees, animals rest during heat), once the sun was getting low and dusk was approaching I slowed down and sat at a comfortable and safe speed for the conditions. The only animals I saw when the speed was up were some eagles that I could see far enough ahead to slow down for and a sparrow that hit my bonnet protector and cracked it (I found it caught under the bonnet protector above the headlight).

As for the puncture that deflates rapidly, normally this will not occur unless there is a road defect that slashes it (see my previous point). In the speed rating of tyres they have to be tested to withstand normal road debris without exploding into a million pieces, I had the appropriate tyres for my vehicle which are Y rated (300 km/h, 100 km/h fudge factor), they were less than 1000 km old.



Or how many of them spend so much time, money and effort ensuring their car is prepared (the car had been serviced 3 days prior to the trip plus I got one of the work mechanics to check it over on the hoist just to be sure). All their brake pads, tyres, oils and fluids are rated for the task. Or have as many advanced driving courses under their belt as I have. Now that would be an interesting poll.

I would go as far as to say that with the road conditions that were in the NT at the time and with an appropriate car, traveling at that speed is actually safer than trudging along dead straight roads at 110 km/h. Let me ask you this, on a predominately straight road with only gentle bends, do you drive looking ahead to the limit of vision and think about appropriate speed for bends and braking distance within your current visual distance? At the speeds I was traveling that is exactly what I was doing, slowing down when bends were approaching and also when my visual distance was reduced to a point that hazards may be obscured until they were well within the required braking distance of my vehicle. My awareness was at a point that even a small hill would prompt me to slow down as I could not see what was on the other side of the crest. How many people at 110 km/h go over the crest at 110 km/h without knowing what is on the other side? The average road user at 110 km/h in those conditions is lucky enough to be awake, never mind concentrating like that. I have to say the reduction in driver fatigue (drive for 1 hr, rest for 1/2 hour and still make good time) made safe driving so much easier and concentrating a cinch.

The risk of crashes on a bike in an urban environment are much higher and less easily controlled, pedestrians on the path, cars on the road, cats, dogs, kids running out etc, etc, etc, make it very likely to crash at some stage and all you have protecting your skull is a layer of skin and hair. That is why I wear a helmet and always will.

One last thought on this OT line of conversation. Just because I am a road safety advocate does not mean I am an advocate of low speeds, I am an advocate of appropriate speeds for road, car, driver and environmental conditions. Improve those conditions and you can raise the speed safely.

I have nothing more

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by KYSBF

Sometimes I reckon I should.....about 1am Sunday etc. But that's not the point.This about pushie helmets.
As a company yes, comprehensive private cover yes. Do you?

So its ok not to wear a helmet walking, but not ok not to wear a helmet cycling, even though the odds of receiving a head injury whilst walking is higher than whilst cycling? That strikes me as a case of double standards. You probably should read the article from the British Journal of Medicine on the subject. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119262/

Yes, I have private health cover and I also have insurance through Cycle Sport Australia.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by geckoGT.

Just because I am a road safety advocate does not mean I am an advocate of low speeds, I am an advocate of appropriate speeds for road, car, driver and environmental conditions. Improve those conditions and you can raise the speed safely.

Game, set and Match.

Couldnt agree more.

[KYSBF]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

So its ok not to wear a helmet walking, but not ok not to wear a helmet cycling, even though the odds of receiving a head injury whilst walking is higher than whilst cycling? That strikes me as a case of double standards. You probably should read the article from the British Journal of Medicine on the subject. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119262/

Yes, I have private health cover and I also have insurance through Cycle Sport Australia.

Bike helmets is the topic.

I'm glad you are responsible enough to look after yourself, take it easy dude.